Opinion
A156672
11-22-2019
In re B.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.W., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JD18-3271, 3271A)
J.W. (father) appeals from a juvenile court order removing his daughters from his care. He argues there was insufficient evidence to support the court's findings (1) that there was substantial danger to the children if they were returned home and (2) that there was no reasonable means to protect the children without removal. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In December 2018, father lived with two of his children, daughters born in 2008. They shared an apartment with father's "off and on" partner S.H. and her three children.
Police Report of the Domestic Violence Incident That Led to the Petition
On December 9, 2018, San Francisco police officers responded to father's apartment on a report of domestic violence. Father reported that he had an on-and-off dating relationship with S.H. and that he is the possible father of S.H.'s four-year-old son. Father said he had asked S.H. to leave the apartment, and S.H. was angry and hit herself to make it look like he hit her. Father told the officers he and S.H. were in a heated argument and she grabbed him so he pushed himself off of her. Officers observed a red mark on the left side of father's cheek.
Here, we note that in the detention/jurisdiction report filed by the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) in December 2018, it was reported that there was a prior referral to Child Protective Services in 2015 in which it was alleged that father and S.H. were the parents of a newborn and that father was beating S.H. in front of the children, hitting his two daughters with a belt, using cocaine, and forgetting to feed the children; the whereabouts of the family was unknown at the time of the referral.
We further note that father also has at least three other children, a two-year-old and three-year-old who live in Arizona and a six-year-old who lives in Detroit.
S.H. also characterized her relationship with father as an "off and on relationship" of about four years. She reported that she was packing up to move out of the apartment and that she and father got in a heated argument about money in the master bedroom. S.H. told the police that father hit her in the face with his open palm, cutting the inside of her lower lip. She said she grabbed father's collar to stop him from hitting her, he slapped her twice, and he ended up on top of her, holding her down with his right forearm on her neck pinning her to the bed. S.H. had a large, dark contusion on the right side of her neck, and she reported the bruise was caused by father a week earlier in an unreported incident.
S.H.'s teenaged daughter told the police she heard a loud thumping sound from the bedroom and heard her mother crying. She said she went to the door of the bedroom and saw S.H. trying to get up and father pushing her down several times with his right hand on her shoulder and his left hand on her chest. The police also spoke with father's girls. They said they did not see the incident and only heard banging on the wall.
After speaking with witnesses, the officers placed father under arrest for corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5) and child endangerment (id., § 273a). The police called Child Protective Services because father reported his daughters' mother (mother) was "not around" and there was no nearby family member who could care for the girls.
Petition and Detention
On December 11, 2018, the Agency filed a dependency petition for the two girls. As to father, it was alleged that he got into a physical altercation with his "roommate" while the girls were present and that his relationship with mother was "characterized by domestic violence." As to mother, it was alleged her whereabouts were unknown and it was unknown whether she was able to care for the girls.
The following day, the juvenile court found a prima facie case was made that the girls came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 and ordered them detained temporarily pending a contested hearing. A contested hearing on detention was held on December 18, 2018. There is no reporter's transcript in the appellate record of the hearing, but the minutes reflect that testimony and exhibits were received into evidence. At the contested hearing, the court confirmed its earlier order detaining the girls. The girls were placed in the home of a relative, and the court ordered, "Father shall complete 6 sessions of [domestic violence b]attery treatment to reevaluate placement with father."
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Jurisdiction/Disposition Report
On February 1, 2019, the Agency filed a jurisdiction/disposition report. Since the girls had been detained, a social worker had spoken with the girls, father, and mother about father's history of domestic violence with mother and other women.
As to the incident with S.H. on December 9, 2018, father denied he got into a physical or verbal altercation with S.H. He stated he called the police that day and things got turned around on him. He said the police put words in his daughters' mouths. Father maintained that there were no marks or bruises on S.H. and that he was "caught up" in S.H.'s and mother's "bull crap."
The social worker spoke with each of the girls about the incident. One of the girls stated she was home during the incident, she did not want to talk about it, and she did not see anything. She pounded her hand on a table to demonstrate the sound she heard and said she had heard those noises before. The other girl "spoke in a baby voice" and said she did not want to say anything because it was family business. She heard someone say, "don't do that." She said S.H. was cursing and screaming. In the past, she had seen father hit a woman and that woman hit father when the girls were living in Las Vegas.
The Agency report indicated the girl said she had seen her dad hit S.H. and this occurred in Las Vegas. However, other documentary evidence and subsequent testimony demonstrate that father hit a different woman in Las Vegas, S.W., whose first name is similar to or the same as S.H.'s. A police report from Las Vegas showed that father was arrested for domestic violence against S.W., who reported that he punched her in the forehead. A police officer observed a large knot in the center of S.W.'s forehead.
Mother told the social worker father had been verbally and physically abusive throughout their relationship. She said, "he likes to beat up on women." She stated that in Detroit, father punched her in front of their daughters and gave her a concussion and busted eye. She said the police were called but they never came. According to mother, "every where they lived in Las Vegas, they got kicked out for [domestic violence]." She reported that father punched another woman, S.W., in the face in front of the girls and S.W. fell on one of the girls. Mother further stated that father punched S.W. in the stomach while she was pregnant.
The social worker documented prior referrals to child welfare agencies. In 2015, for example, there was a report in Kern County of general neglect and emotional and physical abuse by father, and the "referral was evaluated out because Agency was unable to locate [the] family." In 2013, there were allegations in Contra Costa County of general neglect by father, which were deemed "inconclusive." A report prepared in the Contra Costa County matter noted that mother said there was an ongoing pattern of abuse by father and that father threatened to kill mother. In this report, it was documented that one of the girls stated she had seen father hit mother and she had seen bruises on mother but did not know how she got them.
The Contra Costa County report is not in the record. In the Agency's detention/jurisdiction report, however, it was further documented that in the Contra Costa County matter, mother and father were living together with the girls in Antioch, father punched mother, and the girls said, "Don't hit Mommy."
Father denied any and all domestic violence. During the course of the social worker's investigation, she reported that father asked her "several times to listen to a recording of his past partner stating . . . she likes it rough and for her men to beat her." The social worker always declined to listen to the recording. On January 22, 2019, however, father "was adamant that [she] listen[] to the recording, and he began playing without prompting or consent." The social worker reported, "As I listened to the video, I asked [father] what was going on while this incident was being recorded. He suggested that I not listen[] to the sounds on the recording, but the words of the female. I immediately told [father] to turn off the recording because it was inappropriate. He turned off the recording but continue[d] to try to get me to 'listen to what the female was saying and not the sounds.' I told [father] that the recording was inappropriate and that I was not going to listen to it. He continued to force the issue, and clearly did not understand that 'no means no.' " The social worker continued to state she would not listen to the recording, and he eventually stopped pushing the issue.
Father described his own parenting skills as excellent. He reported that he helped the girls with their homework and the girls had been attending counseling recently to deal with behavioral problems. He was willing to participate in a parenting class.
The girls were placed with father's cousin when they were detained, and the relative caretaker reported that "the children did not know how to drink water, use soap to wash hands or shower" and that the girls hit the caretaker's child and "they are abusive, just like their father."
The girls' therapist reported that they have symptoms associated with ADHD and oppositional defiance. One of the girls had more anxiety than the other. The girls had gotten into physical altercations with peers.
Father sporadically visited the girls. He visited often in December 2018 and then stopped for a period. His visits were more consistent by the end of January 2019, and it was reported that if father did not show up for a visit, he called at least two to three times a week.
In the assessment section of the report, the Agency wrote, "Since the Agency's involvement, the minors have remained out of the home of their parents, and they have not been exposed to any further [domestic violence]. It is the belief of the Agency that if the Court and Agency had not been involved, it is highly likely that the minors would continue to be exposed to violence as the father has not demonstrated that he takes responsibility or accountability for his actions." The report continued, "[Father] fails to understand that his behavior and actions are typical behaviors described in the cycle of [domestic violence], where the perpetrator blames others and deflects blame from himself. Also, he tried to justify his behaviors and only saw things from his own perspective, that 'they' only wanted to take his housing and that other are 'trying to take him down.' "
Reunification services were recommended for father and mother. The Agency determined that continued out-of-home placement was necessary, concluding, "There is a need for Court intervention and placement, and return of the children would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or emotional or physical well-being of the child because the parents need to make positive behavioral changes and address the issues [that] brought them to the attention of the Court and Agency."
Jurisdiction and Contested Disposition
A contested hearing on jurisdiction and disposition was scheduled for March 4, 2019. At the scheduled hearing, the parties agreed on jurisdiction, and father and mother submitted on the petition as amended.
The amended petition that the parties agreed to alleged father got into a physical altercation with roommate S.H. and father was arrested. It was alleged that S.H. was observed to have marks on her face but she refused medical attention; that both girls were present in another room during the incident and they "reported that they knew there was hitting because they heard 'bumping' " and that, as a result of this incident, S.H. obtained a three-year restraining order against father.
Mother did not object to the Agency's recommendation for disposition. Father objected to the Agency's recommendation, and the girls' attorney joined in the objection, stating the girls "would like to go home with [father]."
The social worker who prepared the jurisdiction/disposition report, father, and mother testified.
Social Worker
Social worker Pernita Brown testified that she believed the children needed to remain out-of-home. She had "concerns about dad and his domestic violence." She was aware that he participated in programs, "but he doesn't seem to be benefiting from those programs." Father met with the Agency domestic violence consultant and was attending a 52-week domestic violence program at Glide. The overseer of the Glide program said it was too early to determine whether father was benefitting from the program, but she thought father was "not proactive about what was going on with him but reactive, [and he] wasn't holding himself accountable."
Brown continued, "When I speak with him, [father] does look at himself as a victim. It's always the woman's fault. They just wanted his housing. It was them who were—you know, they're playing games. You know, it was women. It wasn't him." She explained that this caused concern for placing the girls with father "because there will be no behavioral change" and he "will just continue to do the same things" "[i]n front of his children."
In cross-examination, father's attorney elicited from Brown that S.H. was no longer residing with father and that there was a restraining order prohibiting their contact. Brown was not concerned that father and S.H. were going to have another altercation because "[t]hey're not together." But Brown was concerned about "[f]ather's violence with women, period. And then the violence he portrays in front of the children . . . ." Brown testified that father reported he was not in a relationship. She also agreed that there are precautions that can be taken to ensure violence does not occur in the home such as a safety plan and unannounced home visits. "It is a safety plan that we use," Brown explained, "but it's very important that the father is honest and he's willing to work with us." She acknowledged that an arrest in Las Vegas had not resulted in a conviction and the recent arrest that led to the dependency case had not resulted in criminal charges.
The jurisdiction/disposition report documents that a three-year restraining order is in place protecting S.H. and her three children from father.
The court asked what caused the girls to be put in therapy. Brown responded, "They suffer from ADHD, a lot of fighting in school. There was a hygiene problem. There was even concern that they had killed a cat." The court asked whether there was any connection between the girls' fighting and perhaps killing a cat and the long history of domestic violence they had been exposed to by father. Brown answered that the girls' therapist said they were affected by their father. Brown testified she would return the children to father if she felt he was benefitting from all the classes he was taking.
Father
Father testified he had attended five sessions with the Agency's domestic violence consultant Carol Naiga and had participated in a domestic violence group at Glide. Asked what he had learned from his sessions with Naiga, father responded, "To make better decision-making and be careful about who I have around my children, to be humble and patient." Father testified he enjoyed going to classes and participated in discussion every time. He said he planned not to live with any other adults if his children were returned to him.
On cross-examination, the Agency attorney asked father if there was a history of domestic violence in his relationship with mother. Father responded there were allegations and mother said he hit her, but this was not true. He admitted there was "one situation before when we both had slapped each other." As to the incident that led to his arrest in Las Vegas, father said the victim S.W. hit herself on a door and she didn't have any bruises. Asked if he thought "the people you've had around the children have caused your problems," father answered, "I mean it's my own fault also, but I just have to be careful with my decision-making, who I bring around my kids; this is very important. That's why I'm in court now, poor decision-making."
The court asked, "aren't you in court now because you put your hands around the throat of [S.H.]?" Father answered, "No." The court asked, "Can you tell me the effects of your intimate partner violence on your children?" Father responded, "I means what a person do can surely affect the children, but I try not to have that around my children. Yes, I have fussed and yelled in the past and it might have affected them some type of way, but I don't do any fighting around them, if that's what you're asking."
Mother
Mother testified that she had been the victim of domestic violence at the hands of father in Detroit and Las Vegas. Father punched mother in the face when she had one of their daughters in her hand. The girls were four or five years old at the time. On another occasion, father hurt mother and she had to get four stitches under her eye. The girls were present when this happened. Mother showed the scar she still had from the stitches. Another time father pushed her down cement stairs resulting in a concussion. Mother testified that father only began a relationship with the girls when they were three or four years old after they did a DNA test.
Mother testified, "the domestic violence didn't stop, and it's not going to stop." In Las Vegas, mother observed father being violent with S.W. Mother said, "[S.W.] was pregnant at the time. She called the police, and she made a report that he punched her in the stomach—and I was there—while she was pregnant with his child." She further testified she was involved in subsequent incidents of domestic violence with father in Las Vegas. "All the places we was there in Vegas we got put out for domestic violence." The children were with them, and "They seen everything. They saw it."
Mother testified that father had custody of the girls because she had lupus and asthma and was in and out of the hospital, and she thought it was in their interest to be with their father. "But," she said, "when I seen that he was still doing the same thing, putting his hands on women in front of my daughters . . ., I didn't appreciate that at all because that's where they get their anger from, their issues from, from their father beating up on women."
Court Ruling
After hearing the parties' arguments, the court issued its ruling. The court began: "Let me say I remember this case very well. I remember the contested detention hearing. I remember releasing these two little girls to the cousin over the Agency's objection. And I was willing to give these two little girls back to the father if he did a series of battering treatment programs, and they were meaningful participation. And I was very clear at the contested detention hearing they had to be meaningful participation. He needed to get something out of those sessions. . . . He's doing parenting classes and that's fine. He says he's doing them to, quote 'cope with their behaviors.' [Father] needs to do therapy and battering treatment to learn how to cope with his aberrant behaviors and his own violence first and foremost." (Italics added.)
The court believed mother's testimony and found father was still in denial about his aggressive behavior. The court stated, "I was clear with [father]. I said I wanted him to start a battering treatment program immediately. It took him over a month to start the Glide program. And yes, it's great that he is in that program. But he really needs to engage and be proactive as the treatment provider indicated, rather than reactive, rather than be a victim all the time, rather than blame his behavior on PTSD or the women coming to his house or something other than his own tendency towards abuse. Domestic violence is a pattern of violence and abuse, and he's exhibited that pattern time and time again."
The court found that father had not yet benefited from the classes and that he had not been honest. "In fact, he has . . . lied about his history and his behavior." The court stated it was reluctantly following the Agency's recommendation. The court noted its concern that "Brown's rational conclusion on the witness stand was that the children's acting out and the children's own fighting and the allegation that they may have even killed a cat was related to the violence they've been exposed to by their father, and that is very troubling testimony." And the court did not believe a safety plan could be effective "when we have a father in denial who is dishonest about his behavior."
The court found by clear and convincing evidence that there was a substantial danger to the physical and emotional well-being of the children and no reasonable means by which their health could be protected without removing them from the custody of both parents.
DISCUSSION
Under section 361, subdivision (c)(1), "[a] dependent child shall not be taken from the physical custody of his or her parents . . . unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence" that "[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor's physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor's parent's . . . physical custody."
"We review an order removing a child from parental custody for substantial evidence in a light most favorable to the juvenile court findings." (In re Miguel C. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 965, 969.) "Weighing evidence, assessing credibility, and resolving conflicts in evidence and in the inferences to be drawn from evidence are the domain of the trial court, not the reviewing court." (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.) A. Evidence of Substantial Danger to the Girls' Physical and Emotional Well-Being
Father contends the disposition order removing the girls from his care must be reversed because there was no substantial danger to the girls' health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. He argues the Agency failed to demonstrate any connection between father's history of violence with his intimate partners and any risk of harm to the children. We conclude that sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's finding.
Ongoing domestic violence committed in the presence of children is a substantial danger to the children's well-being. (In re J.S. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1494 (J.S.); see In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 576 [" '[D]omestic violence in the same household where children are living . . . is a failure to protect [the children] from the substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or illness from it.' "]; In re Benjamin D. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1464, 1470, fn. 5 ["Both common sense and expert opinion indicate spousal abuse is detrimental to children"].)
In J.S., supra, the mother admitted incidents of domestic violence between herself and the father occurred from 2008 to 2012, but she argued it was no longer a concern because she was not currently living with the father. The most recent incident of domestic violence, however, occurred when the mother was not living with the father, and the social worker opined that the mother was still dependent on the father. From this evidence, the Court of Appeal concluded the juvenile court could reasonably find that removal was necessary. (J.S., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 1493.) Rejecting the father's argument that the domestic violence incidents did not directly affect the children physically, the court held, "Ongoing domestic violence, committed by both parents, in the presence of the children, from 2008 through 2012, is substantial evidence of a substantial danger to the children's emotional well-being, if not their physical well-being." (Id. at p. 1494.)
Here, father concedes "the evidence established a pattern of domestic violence allegations and incidents between father and his intimate partners." Mother's testimony, the police report of the most recent incident, the girls' statements to the social worker, and a prior report from Contra Costa County showed father's abuse of intimate partners occurred in the presence of the girls over a course of years and involved at least three different victims. This was evidence from which the court could find a substantial danger to the girls' emotional well-being. We reject father's claim that the evidence did not demonstrate that the girls were physically or emotionally harmed as result of these incidents. The girls fought in school, had a hygiene problem, and may have killed a cat, and Brown testified that the girls' therapist believed they were affected by their father. Mother, who had lived with father and the girls in the past, also believed the girls got their "anger" and "issues" from seeing their father "beating up on women." J.S. demonstrates that exposure to ongoing domestic violence, in itself, is a substantial danger to a child's emotional well-being. But, in this case, there was actual evidence of the harm to the girls' well-being brought about by father's abusive behavior.
We also reject father's claim that J.S. is meaningfully distinguishable from the current case because there is currently no ongoing domestic violence between father and mother and the most recent allegation was "a single incident." After speaking with father and observing his response to this dependency matter, the social worker determined that father still saw himself as the victim, that he blamed the women in his life, and that "there will be no behavioral change"; rather, he "will just continue to do the same things" "[i]n front of his children." After considering all the evidence, including father's own testimony, the juvenile court found that father had a long-standing problem of domestic violence involving multiple victims and that he was in denial about his own aggressive and aberrant behavior. These findings were supported by the evidence. And given these findings, the court reasonably could find that there was a substantial danger that father would expose the girls to further domestic violence even if the next victim may not be mother or S.H. (See In re F.S. (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 799, 814 [removal order based on domestic violence was supported by substantial evidence even though the mother moved away from the father; the mother's status as aggressor in at least one instance of domestic violence meant her "violent behavior could find a target other than [the] Father"]; In re E.B., supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 [" '[P]ast violent behavior in a relationship is "the best predictor of future violence." ' "].) B. Evidence of No Reasonable Means to Protect the Children Without Removal
Indeed, father concedes on appeal that he "sometimes denied or downplayed the violence," although he argues he also took "significant steps to admit and address the history of violence."
Father next argues there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding of no reasonable means to protect the girls' health without removal. We disagree.
The social worker in this case recognized there are precautions that can be taken to ensure violence does not occur in the home such as a safety plan and unannounced home visits. But, the social worker explained, "it's very important that the father is honest and he's willing to work with us." At the contested hearing, the court was able to observe the testimony of both mother and father, and it came to the conclusion that mother was telling the truth and father was in denial about his long-standing problem with domestic violence. We also note that father asked the social worker several times to listen to a recording of a past partner apparently stating that "she likes it rough and for her men to beat her." The social worker was obviously disturbed by this incident enough to document it in the jurisdiction/disposition report, and she wrote that father "continued to force the issue, and clearly did not understand that 'no means no.' " This episode suggests the father was not willing and able to work with the Agency in an honest and respectful manner on a safety plan to protect the girls from domestic violence. Removal may be warranted even when a parent participates in services if the parent has not yet benefited from those services and is in denial about the problems that led to the dependency. (E.g., In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 136-137 [the court could reasonably find the minor was at substantial risk of harm as a result of the parents' ongoing domestic violence and there were no reasonable means by which she could be protected without removal where the father "had not successfully addressed his anger issues even though he had previously participated in domestic violence treatment and therapy" and "denied responsibility for the violence, claiming [the mother] was the aggressor and he did not know how she sustained her injuries"]; In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 292-293 [substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's order for removal of the minor where the "mother failed to appreciate that she needed to secure her methadone so that the minor could not access it" and "failed to appreciate the serious, and possibly fatal, consequences of using alcohol and methadone together"; "In light of mother's failure to recognize the risks to which she was exposing the minor, there was no reason to believe the conditions would not persist should the minor remain in her home"].)
Father relies on In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 522 for his contrary position. In that case, the Court of Appeal found "ample evidence that appropriate services could have been provided to Karla [the mother] and Henry [the minor] in the family home. The social worker acknowledged that in-home bonding services were available, and that unannounced visits and public health nursing services were potential methods of supervising an in-home placement. These resources would address the bonding issue and mitigate the risk of further physical abuse." (Id. at p. 529.) Notably, the court was concerned that "[t]he social worker credited Karla for being fully cooperative in taking advantage of the services that had been offered to her," but that "[t]he social worker's suggestion that out-of-home placement would be useful to secure Karla's further cooperation was not a proper consideration." (Id. at pp. 529-530.) In addition, the reviewing court was concerned that there was no indication in the record that the juvenile court or the agency "understood the necessity of making the dispositional findings on clear and convincing evidence." (Id. at p. 530.)
Here, in contrast, the social worker did not suggest out-of-home placement as a means to secure father's cooperation in participating in reunification services. The social worker's concern was that father was not benefiting from the services he was using and, therefore, it was likely he would continue to expose the girls to domestic violence. Nor is this a case where the juvenile court misunderstood its duty to make its dispositional findings on clear and convincing evidence. To the contrary, the court stated, "The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial danger to the physical health and emotional well-being of these children, and there are no reasonable means by which the children's physical or emotional health can be protected without removing them from the custody of both the mother and the father at this time." (Italics added.) Finally, it was reasonable for the court to find that father's denial about his abuse and his continued deflecting and blaming of the victims likely doomed any safety plan from being sufficient to protect the girls from ongoing domestic violence in the home. How could father be trusted to avoid harmful behavior in front of his children when he denies he engages in such behavior in the first place? (Cf. In re A.F., supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 293 [unannounced visits and substance abuse testing were not sufficient to protect the minor; given the mother's "refusal to acknowledge her substance abuse and its potential effect to her judgment and on the minor, there was no way to guarantee the minor's physical health, well-being, and protection while living with mother"].)
Father recognizes that a history of domestic violence can serve as the basis for a removal order in some cases, but he argues this is not such a case. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the juvenile court findings, however, we conclude there was more than enough evidence to support the court's finding that there were no means short of removal to protect the girls from exposure to father's domestic violence.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's dispositional orders are affirmed. Father's unopposed motion to strike a portion of the respondent's brief is granted.
/s/_________
MILLER, J. We concur: /s/_________
RICHMAN, Acting P.J. /s/_________
STEWART, J.